Picture Pages: Devin Gardner's Near Interception Pity Party

SITE NOTE: due to this taking longer than I wanted it to and triple OT, UFR will be in the evening today.

Devin Gardner threw many passes that hit Northwestern defenders on Saturday, a good number of them I CAN'T BELIEVE HE DROPPED THAT interceptions. There were moments when I was going over the game where it seemed like it wasn't really all that bad because of thing X or thing Y, and then moments where it was very, very bad. So I thought I'd pull this out of a larger UFR discussion and try to evaluate just what happened on the various passes on which Gardner's throws hit Northwestern players.

Normally I wouldn't put batted passes in here, but there were a few incidents where batted passes were the only thing separating Northwestern from yet another pass that hit them in the hands and was inexplicably dropped, so they are also added.

Category #1: Understandable Items

#1: Gardner gets a heavy rush due to a bad blitz pickup, escapes it, and tries to throw late to a covered Devin Funchess; ball gets batted down at the line.

Category #2: Death-Defying Really Bad Ideas

He does get pressure from another crappy slide protection on which Lewan ignores a DE, and unless Gallon is open deeper to the outside the best case scenario here is a sack if he does not throw the ball. That was the move.

Category #3: Guys Popping Up In Bad Places

One of the themes of the day was Northwestern dumping guys into areas they expected Michigan to throw and getting those throws, often because Michigan had few other options. You may remember that a bunch of throws to Jeremy Gallon seemed scary because they had to get over a defender, and that's because Northwestern was dropping an end to his side on play after play.

This was mostly just scary, as that DE ended up about six inches from batting the ball three or four times. I know that OCs hate it when you throw over dropping defenders, because the windows there are small and the result if you miss it is the sort of PBU that flutters into the air for the rest of the secondary to pounce on, but on a lot of these throws Gardner had no better options.

The first play here was a Gallon drop, the second a completion.

This one was another pass batted at the line that Michigan was fortunate to get away with:

This is a bad read, too, but I have sympathy for Gardner as Northwestern is clearly sitting on this exact thing and gets it.

Again, options there are Gallon or Funchess not particularly open or thing Michigan does all the time and Northwestern is hoping they will do. On the next third down a similar thing happens, as Michigan rolls the pocket hoping for a comeback route to Chesson and NW just runs a guy under it.

This is a terrible decision on which his best option is to throw the ball out of bounds and set up fourth and four, which is a terrible option when you have a minute left and are down three points.

At least he didn't throw this pop pass on which Northwestern is waiting to have the ball clang off their hands.

Excelsior!

Conclusions

It wasn't as bad as it looked because it was worse. Gardner had two or three balls knocked down at the line that were headed for at least PBUs and possibly interceptions if anyone on Northwestern had been familiarized with the idea of catching a football. And for the most part these were on him. Even if you have nowhere to go, the play is usually to eat the sack and live to fight another day. There were six passes on which Gardner threw into near-INT coverage without a mitigating factor. That is brutal.

Borges really did not help, though. Michigan's first throw over about 15 yards occurred with under a minute left in regulation, that a fly route just over Chesson's head after the rollout sack to put Michigan in second and twenty-three. That was the first time Michigan even looked at one—they didn't try to get some deep throws off only to be thwarted by pressure. It was windy, but it wasn't that windy, especially when you've got this offense.

Like the last two games, Northwestern had several instances where they were basically reading Borges's mind on key plays late. Even most of the completions to Gallon were a foot away from trouble with Northwestern dropping DEs into his area most of the day. Quarterbacks don't usually have the number of opportunities to throw near INTs that Gardner did in this game, and this is against a Northwestern secondary that is not particularly good.

For most of the day, Michigan had nothing with which to respond. They broke Butt to an out route on the pop pass for six yards. That was about it. It wasn't until the last play of the second overtime and first play of the third that he made an adjustment by sending Gallon on open post routes, the first of which was dropped by Gallon, the second of which was winged wide by Gardner. "We didn't execute" is approved in re: those two plays. Better late than never, I guess, but taking 3.5 quarters to adapt usually means your great idea comes on the bus ride home. The rest of the day was spent with hitch after hitch that was dangerous and blanketed pop passes, etc.

Bryan Fuller

The regression question. How much of this is on Michigan not having anyone open versus Gardner not being good at quarterbacking versus Borges not being a great QB coach is unknown. Gardner seems to be regressing, like Denard seemed to regress before him. While there are a lot of reasons Gardner's decision-making is going the wrong direction—most prominently the barbarian waves charging through the offensive line—this is verging on a trend.

Is there a counter-trend in Borges's career? Unfortunately, he's bounced around so much that it's almost impossible to get a read on whether he can develop a quarterback. The only extended stints in his career were from 1996 to 2000 at UCLA and 2004 to 2007 at Auburn.

At UCLA, Borges had Cade McNown, who went from an INT-mad sophomore with a 52% completion rate to a 10 YPA, 3 TD : 1 INT guy his last two years. After McNown left, three UCLA QBs combined to have a miserable year in 1999, with freshman Cory Paus becoming the starter and putting up 6.8 yards an attempt on under 50% completions. Paus got better the year after with a 9.0 YPA, ok TD/INT ratio, and 56% completion percentage, whereupon Bob Toledo got broomed. Paus was basically the same player under the new regime. Complicating matters: Toledo had been UCLA's offensive coordinator the two years before he was promoted, so it's tough to suss out what was Toledo and what was Borges.

At Auburn he was definitely in charge of everything. After one year of Jason Campbell that went very well, Borges had Brandon Cox, who had a degenerative muscle disease and went backwards, finishing his career with his worst YPA (6.6), 9 TDs, and 13 INTs. These are literally the only serious data points we have here, as those are the only stints of his career that have lasted longer than two years other than this one. (Borges has a knack for showing up at places just before the coaching staff gets canned.) Can Borges develop a quarterback? I have no idea. It doesn't help that he had a QB coach at San Diego State who had some hand in developing Ryan Lindley.

Like you said in your most recent mailbag "95% chance Borges returns." Personally I have the number even higher but the fact remains, he is extremely unlikely to go anywere no matter how many bloggers, local media writers, national football pundits or even Heisman-winning ex-Michigan national analysts call for a change.

The fact that his offense has completely bogged down, his QB is regressing and our opponents seem to know the plays before they are called matters not. His boss loves his work, is 100% in his corner and that's all that matters.

For the love of all that is good in this world, give it a rest already. This schtick is getting tired, man. You say the same thing on almost every thread, every day, many times. We get it. You do not like Borges.You're going to take your ball of money and go home. A lot of people don't like Borges right now, I'm one of those people. You're accomplishing nothing here. If anything, this constant need to vent is counterproductive. Recruits read these boards, as I'm sure do some guys on the actual team. You're not helping.

Further: Personally I have the number even higher but the fact remains, he is extremely unlikely to go anywere no matter how many bloggers, local media writers, national football pundits or even Heisman-winning ex-Michigan national analysts call for a change.

This is just a touch disingenuous. Desmond didn't call for a change, he questioned whether Borges is capable, there is a difference. I'm pretty sure Brian hasn't either. You're now twisting other people's words to fit your narrative. I've held my tounge for a while now out of basic respect, but please back off a bit. Or don't. It's your choice, obviously, but you're really only contributing to the general unreadability of this board right now.

You had better direct those same comments then to Brian cause he has a shitload more pull and influence than I do and i wouldnt exactly term him an "apologist". To claim my bitching could somehow negatively impact recruiting but front page content does not is laughable.

I'm not the one posting endless "Who should our next OC be" threads and I'm not creating abunch of screen names to respond to them. If you think somehow I'm the only one unhappy with Borges then you've got other issues with me that this is just bringing to the surface.

And for the record go back and read my comments regarding Borges for the past serveral days. About the only negative thing i've posted other than the comment above re Borges this week was a copy and paste from another poster regarding a question he wanted asked during a Borges presser. Go back and read what I said in the "what would it take to make you change your mind about Borges" thread. I didnt even close the door on being ok with him returning:

"as much as I dislike Borges & Funk's results to date I have zero issues with them personally so if they somehow turn this ship around and manage to provide a coherent and sustainable offense over the next three games I would be happy to see both return."

Your statement that I "say the same thing on almost every thread, every day, many times" is patently false.

Brian isn't calling for anyone to be fired. He has explicitly stated that he wouldn't fire Borges this year were he in charge. So, why would I direct my comment to him?

...cause he has a shitload more pull and influence than I do...

Ya think?

To claim my bitching could somehow negatively impact recruiting but front page content does not is laughable...

It isn't just your bitching. It's the collective bitching. You've just been the loudest, most vocal of them, so I'm talking to you. It isn't helping anything, so why hammer it so hard?

I'm not the one posting endless "Who should our next OC be" threads and I'm not creating abunch of screen names to respond to them...

I know that, but I expect more from you I guess?

If you think somehow I'm the only one unhappy with Borges then you've got other issues with me that this is just bringing to the surface.

Did you see where I said that I am one of those people not happy with Borges? My only issue with you is that through all of this you come off as very self-important.

"And for the record go back and read my comments regarding Borges for the past serveral days. About the only negative thing i've posted other than the comment above re Borges this week was a copy and paste from another poster regarding a question he wanted asked during a Borges presser. Go back and read what I said in the "what would it take to make you change your mind about Borges" thread. I didnt even close the door on being ok with him returning:

"as much as I dislike Borges & Funk's results to date I have zero issues with them personally so if they somehow turn this ship around and manage to provide a coherent and sustainable offense over the next three games I would be happy to see both return.""

Not sure what to say to that. You've said the words FIRE BORGES quite a number of times now... I haven't had a chance to look at the thread you quoted here, but honestly probably wouldn't have anyway because of the topic.

I don't know, man. Guess that's all I have to say. Not sure why my last two paragraphs are blocked though...

when your national media member and well respected, former Heisman Trophy winner has any concern about a coach's capabilities. I really doubt anyone is going to question Desmond's ability to analyze an offensive scheme.

Go Blue!

PS - mGrowOld ... keep speaking your mind!

No place on earth I'd rather be on a football Saturday than Michigan Stadium !

I think MGrow and everyone else should beat this subject dead until a change finally happens.

If Brady Hoke is too stupid to see the writing on the wall, then the collective fanbase needs to make as much noise as it possibly can until BH or DB cannot ignore it anymore.

Maybe nothing will come out of the collective cry.... but damned if I will ever shut up about egregious leadership that is a recipe for years of shortcomings. Life is short! I don't want to wait several more years to find out we can't beat our rivals.... I see the writing on the wall.

like i give a fuck if this subject is "old" to Timmaaayyyyyyy and others.

Outside of the echo chamber that is MGoBlog, and a half dozon other sites, the vast majority of the fan base, while disappointed in this season, are as yet unwilling to abandon this coaching staff, the team, or the direction that the program is heading. The fire _____ group here is what maybe a 50-100 folks? The fireborges.com website has what 8000 or so vote? The last time I was at a bowl game where Michigan was playing there were over 60,000 Michigan fans. The Michigan alumi base is what at least a million plus? Then you add the non-alumni fan base and you are looking at millions.

So the "collective fan base" is not interested in disrupting the program for the third time in six years. All this echo chamber does is influence the people who come here, which unfortuantely includes prospective recruits. A tidbit that, as a fan and supporter, you might wish to consider.

While you are correct that life is short, building or rebuilding a championship program takes time. The good news is that, as far as any of us on the outside can tell, Brandon is not really interested in this echo chamber and all the ranting here is only going to make rational discussion more difficult.

Looks to me like DG had nobody open on most of those plays (except Butt on #2) and outside of the hitches and outs we completed, nobody was open all day. It seemed like we really struggled to get people open against man to man coverage, especially in the red zone and on the roll outs.

but i remember a few plays at the game where i felt that DG just has to throw the damn ball. one was on a single coverage fade route at about the NW 10 yd line. gallon was isolated one-on-one and i expected a fade to him. it was called but DG looked then took off running the other way for nothing. the play was there. a few other times he was under pressure with guys running fly patterns. he took sacks. with single coverage, he's got to throw that arm punt. our receivers have the advantage in plays like those.

It seems like he will simply ride tendencies until the other team stops. I am unsure how we have been unable to create a more sophisticated route scheme with the receiving talent at WR and TE. Hell, have Al watch a few Patriot games or something to get some ideas. Maybe a chat with Tom would be useful since they have been worked with a depleted roster, new talent and still run some good stuff that helps guys get open.

"Michigan's first throw over about 15 yards occurred with under a minute left in regulation, that a fly route just over Chesson's head after the rollout sack to put Michigan in second and twenty-three. That was the first time Michigan even looked at one—they didn't try to get some deep throws off only to be thwarted by pressure. It was windy, but it wasn't that windy, especially when you've got this offense."

I don't think the wind was the problem. Last few games it was established that those long routes weren't working because the O-line couldn't pass protect long enough for those routes to develop. MGoBlog reamed him for it. Now he goes for a short passing game, which is precisely what the MGoBlog community determined was his only option knowing the obvious downside was the risk of a INT (with an INT-prone QB at that), and this is now what's wrong with DG? C'mon, man.

Michigan's plays are predictable because Borges gives his opposing defenses pre-snap reads; for this I want to light Borges' office chair on fire while he's still sitting in it. That said, it's not (clear-cut) Borges' fault that Michigan's scheme is predictable for lack of options. They can't run, they can't pass protect, so they were heading toward an Akron-like short passing game the whole time. Don't fault Borges for NU seeing the writing on the wall.

It's just too bad we don't have a proven, surehanded senior possession receiver. You know, some guy in the slot to flood a zone. I mean, heck, I'll take a short slow unathletic white guy at this point as long as his presence would occupy a linebacker. Just too bad. What a shame.

thanks for writing this one. it answers the main question I had from your initial game summary where you mentioned the near-interceptions could be attributed both to predictable play calling and bad decision making.

So it helped to see the different categories and I like hearing your thought process on things.

First, after having watched the game on tv, I cannot conclude whether long routes were run as an option or not. I'll assume you are correct, and did the research on that.

Second, however, this is the first game in some time that our running game was somewhat effective, and therfore, avoided the 2nd and 3rd and long calls leading to long pass patterns and hence sacks behind an inexperienced offensive line and indecisive quarterback that you complained about the last two weeks. In that light, it's not surprising we saw many more short passes.

Third, you're overall analysis of quarterback play was right-on. This, in my opinion, was a very poor day by Devin Gardner. But, at least he threw the ball, instead of staring at the defensive line chasing him. I'm still not sure how that relates to Borges', though.

"Yellow the stars as they ride through the night
And reel in a rollicking crew"

As Brian stated, most of these near-interceptions stem from LB's or DE's dropping into space -- there are usually 2-3 defenders in the vicinity of the receiver on a lot of these quick slants and hitches. This congestion would be mitigated if those defenders had to respect the run more, obviously (although when they did recognize a run look, they stayed home). This is not a particularly insightful comment -- of course Borges would love to have a running game that can better set up these quick, short passes.

The flip side is that if LBs and DEs are dropping into coverage, there are less defenders rushing the passer. And yet, Gardner was consistently hurried into making these passes due to the pass rush. Sure, NW was overloading one side of the OL or beating Kerridge and Company (Taylor, what were you thinking on that slide protection!), but that is especially disconcerting. Edit: Actually, after re-watching the 6 plays in the third category, 5 out of those 6 plays were blocked pretty well by the OL -- they were mostly bad quick reads by Gardner (with the exception being the last play).

"It would be a travesty, it would be ridiculous to all of a sudden come back and get the feeling back, get the health back, feel good again and then all of a sudden go throw some other colors on my shirt and go coach."

is a good counter up the seem, i think, in those situations like. there is the one pic above showing him wide open. i'm not sure if you're allowed to have polaroids during the game, but that would be a good time for a coach to show DG after that series...or at least on a chalkboard, but borges is up in the box and we have no QB coach on the sideline. i just wonder if this makes it difficult to give DG teaching moments during the game.

A local sports radio host here in Oklahoma (former Okie State QB) made a similar point about the value of having a QB coach on the sideline. He thinks it's invaluable to have that instant, face-to-face feedback that no amount of words over a headset can compensate for.

After thinking about this further, I was curious as to whether these bad reads, drops into coverage by LBs and DEs, and 'desperate' throws were a function of the down and distance. One would think the LBs and DEs dropping into zone coverage (or simply dropping in search of quick slants and hitches to Gallon/TE's) would occur on obvious passing downs.

I'd say that confirms my suspicions, but then again I would've expected more 3rd-and-long plays to result in these near-misses than the data suggests.

"It would be a travesty, it would be ridiculous to all of a sudden come back and get the feeling back, get the health back, feel good again and then all of a sudden go throw some other colors on my shirt and go coach."

I expected this to be a revalation about how many of Gardner's passes were actually near picks.

It turned out to be another venue in which to try and indict Borgess:

To wit, the following erros:

1. Brian to equate batted balls as almost picks. His presumption about them being better off batted may be true, but to equate that as an almost pick is ridiculous. A QB often throws in a window and just because it is a tight window, the presumption was always pick. Theonly way a batted ball would not have been a pick would have been if the WR was WIDE open. Why make that leap in conclusion, unless there is a thesis to prove?

2. "Gardner did in this game, and this is against a Northwestern secondary that is not particularly good." Actually, going into the game NW had BY FAR the most INTs in the conference. Even after the game, they still have a very healthy lead. Apparently, they are very good at picking off balls. But, let's just call them "ot particularly good" in a vague way because, aside from their propensity to pick off passes -- the topic of this post --, they are not overall good.

3. Let's also just conclusively say Denard regressed. never mind that Denard's INTs got better from year one under Borgess to year two. Never mind that prior to his injury against Neb. last year, his INTs were improving throughout 2012 as well (not just year over year).

4. Finally, let's just take this opportunityto conclude Gardner has regressd overall based on perceived dropped picks in one game. Ignore the fact that He was throwing INTs at a rate of 7% per attempt early in the year against the likes of CMU, ND, Akron, etc. And that over the last four games his INT rate is somewhere around 1% while playing the meat of the B10 schedule.

A conclusion of "regression" based on an interpretation of a game in which he threw no INTS against the single best team at getting INTs in the conferenceis "weak sauce."

I guess a case could be made for not progressing enough, or even some type of regression to some degree and in some way, but to this post doesn't even try to be fair or complete.

I would take your arguments more seriously if you correctly spelled Borges' name.

"It would be a travesty, it would be ridiculous to all of a sudden come back and get the feeling back, get the health back, feel good again and then all of a sudden go throw some other colors on my shirt and go coach."

"It would be a travesty, it would be ridiculous to all of a sudden come back and get the feeling back, get the health back, feel good again and then all of a sudden go throw some other colors on my shirt and go coach."

How about just No. 3, because it's the easiest to swat with some numbers.

With a small but ugly sample in 2009, people were asking if Denard could even be a college QB. Look at the improvement under RR from 2009 to 2010, then the regression each year under "Borgess" (what, is he dating Funchess or something?)

of everyone else but you on Devin, don't convince you, alone, that Devin ius not the same QB he was earlier this year or last, no "real analysis" will I don't think. I love discussion and civil debate, but your position on Denard is like arguing that healthcare.gov needs a few tweaks. and more analysis, before drawing conclusions.

"Before I could pull the trigger, I was hit by lightning, and bitten by a cobra."

1) That's a dishonest representation of this post. Those weren't just "tight windows," they were almost all "Bad Idea Jeans" reads. Also, nice doubletalk when you equate "almost pick" with "presumed pick" while complaining about Brian doing the same thing.

2) The numbers show NW has a pretty bad secondary. This could be because they take unwise gambles that happen to be paying off this year in the form of INTs. Lots of INTs only tell a part of the story.

3) I love drawing conclusions about a player's entire acumen based on a single statistic

4) especially when I dishonestly whine about someone else doing the same thing.

As for NW's defense, the only part about their seconadry that is at issue here is their ability to intercept the ball. They likely do gamble on picks and get a lot, but get burnt too. The non-INT part is not part of Brian's post, so not sure how it matters????

As for draing conclusions based on ONE STATISTIC, that is what I am railing against. A case might be made about Gardner, but citing his (dropped) INT numbers against one team is NOT DOING IT.

If Brian wants to look at only INTS, his conslusions are basless based on looking at Denard and Devins INTs. If he wants to make a broader point about regression (like he does), he has shown no support.

If you honestly think Brian drew the conclusion that Gardner has regressed as a passer based on the information in THIS POST ALONE, then you need a remedial reading course. And maybe a lobotomy. I'm not sure how anyone with even a passing understanding of English could pull that out from the post.

The bit about regression comes in the final paragraph, where a thousand-foot view of the situation is examined. Then Brian pulls out a bunch of numbers that aren't merely INT stats to check for regression patterns, meaning he's clearly not just looking at just that one stat. Good job basically lying your ass off.

More recently that that, he has been running for his life behind the current line, but he has not multiplied that with more INTs. that is progress to a degreee.

You cant just presume Gardner is getting worse.

This is what Brian said in the Nebraska UFR:

"The season progression here is remarkable: three TAs in the first five games, 17 in the last four. This is cutting down on the interceptions in the last couple games at the same time it cuts down on the offense."

Brian finished the section by saying "Given how much pressure he was getting and how a large number of those TAs seemed like plays on which there was really no one open, I'm actually fine with Gardner's performance."

Gardner has regressed since ND and CMU, and if you can't see that, despite the propensity to throw iNT's being down lately, not much more can be said. But I guess you like to use one stat to rule them all. so you'll use that one.

Speaking of that, you use one stat to rule them all regarding NW secondary, as pointed out by another poster.

Lastly, Deanrd--it is statistcal fact, not my or anyone's opinion, that Denard was a better passer in '10 than in '11 or '12 under Borges. More selective stat making and editing on your part.

"Before I could pull the trigger, I was hit by lightning, and bitten by a cobra."

I don't think he's even arguing that there hasn't been some regression. He's just saying that Brian choosing INT as a metric is probably the wrong move for the reasons stated above.

My take is a bit different. Before Hoke got here, I had no faith is Gardner ever becoming a good QB. He had looked very bad in every appearance and was as raw as they come when I watched him in the spring. His footwork was, with no exaggeration, nonexistent. So, I think Borges gets some credit for getting him to this level, and gets some blame for the seeming regression. Double edged sword and all that.

but if you have watched this team play this year and honestly believe that DG hasn't regressed in a very real, very obvious way than I have to question your ability to to judge performance of a football player. I mean, I halways mention that I'm not a football wizqrd, but even my untrained eye can see that our QB has regressed in almost every way imaginable since he first started playing last year, and it isn't even close.

Again, I don't mean to offend you in the least as I believe everyone is entitiled to their opinion, but hoenstly, people who want to keep AB around are always yelling at those who want him fired to explain why. Then, they explain why they have issues with him and back those issues up with actual facts, and it still isn't enough.

Then, when those who want AB to stay are asked why, there is either no response or obviously false statements thrown out in his defence like "our QB hasn't actually regressed". I've seen enough of your posts on this blog over the years to believe that you're smarter than that, so the only thing I can think is you're just blindly holding out hope that AB is a long term solution to UM problems (not that there's anything wrong with that, I just didn't expect most people to have that belief). I mean,. I hope he's the answer to too because it looks like we are stuck with him, but what I see on Saturday's tells me that isn't the case.